The Villian In The Diesel Fuel Price Disparity

[LostCause]

Originally Posted by Big Dave

What is the metric for the health payoff of these regulations? Reduced hospitalizations? A longer life expectancy? What are the American people getting in exchange for diesel fuel costing 70 to 90 cents a gallon more than unleaded and diesel vehicles being robbed of 4% of their efficiency. (If you are a fan of Al Gore, et al, this reduction in efficiency reads out in greater CO2 emissions, so that is another price of these regulations.) Is there a metric of the benefit like we had with lead, or is this like the ozone thing where the payoff is uncertain and many decades into the future, or is it (as I suspect) a sacrifice without payoff?

If diesel emissions aren't a health risk, would you mind taking a big whiff of your exhaust? Take a couple big whiffs every hour of every day for the next 5 years and we'll see if there are any effects. You say no cancer. I say cancer. It'll be fun, we can see whose right!

Increased price of diesel coupled with decreased efficiency will lead to a decrease in CO2 emissions. How? Logically, people are going to use more thriftness on that which costs more. If diesel costs more and you need more of it to drive, you'll probably put more thought into your driving habits...

- LostCause

[Big Dave]

Trebuchet posted:
“You're set in your ways…”

Big Dave says:
That hardly qualifies me as the Lone Ranger on this board. I notice a lot of people set in their way of accepting what the EPA puts out at face value.


Trebuchet posted:
“And yes, curse the poor countries for needing extra time to reach the rich country's level of compliance.”

Big Dave says:
Did you just admit that the ban on CFCs were done more to satisfy a redistributionist agenda than a scientific and health-oriented agenda? If there were a real scientific health threat, would one not want “all hands on deck” to combat the problem? As it is the US will wind up taking a 40 year hit before enough reduction in emission is mandated (assuming any meaningful compliance in the favored “developing nations”) to maybe do something about reducing the ozone hole.


Roflwaffle posted:
“The risks of diesel exhaust are based on epidemiological studies…”

Big Dave says:
Yeah. Epidemiological studies sponsored by the EPA or other organizations with a bias toward more regulation. Research is highly sensitive to the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules. Do a study that undermines the EPA and you never get another grant from them.


Frank Lee posted:
“...and we all know how much big dave loves human lives!”

Big Dave says:

Real identifiable or measureable ones I do. Imaginary and unquantifiable ones – I don’t give a rip.


Lost Cause posted:
“If diesel emissions aren't a health risk, would you mind taking a big whiff of your exhaust? Take a couple big whiffs every hour of every day for the next 5 years and we'll see if there are any effects. You say no cancer. I say cancer. It'll be fun, we can see whose right!”

Big Dave posted:
No problem. I have been exposed to more diesel smoke than you can imagine ever since 1969. My professional life has had me around locomotives, diesel trucks, emergency generators, ships and boats, and mining equipment for at least 4 hours a day since Nixon was still popular. No cancer after 39 years. How do you like your crow cooked?

[trebuchet03]

Wow Dave... wow...

It's not worth it - you're so hard set that you'll go as far as putting words/thoughts in other people's mouths... I'm not going to even respond to any of that - feel free to waste your time with a response to this though, I'll enjoy another laugh

[roflwaffle]

X2... If you wanna put a hole in the epidemiological studies, feel free, but bring something besides idle speculation.

[diesel_john]

you guys are starting to worry me, i drove a 730D with no cab, for 32 years and the stack was about 5 feet in front of my face...



'You have some exposure, but unless you're exposed to elevated levels ~24/7/365'

that's good it was only one month a year

[roflwaffle]

You have some exposure, but unless you're exposed to elevated levels ~24/7/365 it isn't as much of a concern as living by, for instance, the LA harbor, with the emissions from ships, equipment, and thousands or trucks coming through every day, that tends to sit there thanks to local weather. Statistically speaking living in the most polluted areas is like having everyone smoke a quarter of a pack per day for most of the year or something.

[Big Dave]

You don’t think there is an elevated level at ready tracks, or in truck stops, or in mines, or on test stands?

If it were going to cause cancer don’t you think it would in a 39 year period?

The fact of the matter is that this eco-mindless EPA policy is driving people away from the most powerful tool there is for increasing MPG.

[Duffman]

These types of discussions can never be won. I was a participant in a 200+ post topic on ULSD, DPFs, EPA and Global warming over on FTE. Big use of time and nobody changed thier views.

http://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/50...d-the-epa.html

[trebuchet03]

Originally Posted by Duffman

These types of discussions can never be won. I was a participant in a 200+ post topic on ULSD, DPFs, EPA and Global warming over on FTE. Big use of time and nobody changed thier views.

You deserve a beer

And this thread needs more lolcats

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by Big Dave

You don’t think there is an elevated level at ready tracks, or in truck stops, or in mines, or on test stands?

If it were going to cause cancer don’t you think it would in a 39 year period?

The fact of the matter is that this eco-mindless EPA policy is driving people away from the most powerful tool there is for increasing MPG.

Sure there is, although maybe not as much since the worst areas are like a combination of a few truck stops, mines, and maybe a track or two. The difference is that the people at tracks, truck stops, or mines, for the most part people are there willingly, and aren't exposed to it 24/7/365. The people who live in and around, for instance, the port of LA, don't have a choice and can be exposed 24/7/365, from thousands of diesels, hundreds of ships, and who nkows what construction equipment, in an area where said pollution can sit. It also won't cause cancer in everyone, it just elevates the risk for everyone, which is seen in higher rates of lung cancer and other pulmonary trouble in specific areas.

Maybe if emissions systems didn't result in a negligible decrease in mileage over their lifespans, I suppose the cost would be greater, but as it stands even the economy angle is kinda moot.